[Deleted by user.]

In contrast to the Bonehugger Dance, I don´t see it going to the cards this time. Early Tyson was a "hit and don´t get hit" fighter (when he sniffed too much power).
Foreman wasn´t like that.
He was used to force fighters back, make them lose their balance and/or reeling back. He fought fire with fire. Who can blame him, beeing the brightest torch on the battlefield? But eventually someone with a roaring blaze would come and echo the same tactics.
Fighting fire with even more gasoline.
And he came by the name of Ronald Lyle!

I believe there aren´t many boxers able to brawl and out-strength it with 70s Foreman. Liston. Maybe Ruddock. Young AJ and Bruno to a lesser extent. Bowe, Lewis and Vitali could, but would box him.
In fact I think strong crude, but durable Bonecrusher is the perfect fighter to try it. Even better might be Ibeabuchi.

 

The only boxer puncher where prime George struggels with would be Liston (50/50). Maybe Witherspoon also (kinda 70/30). I guess the Lyle brawl was just an "accident". So i say Foreman wins at least 90 out of 100 times.

 

It's a funny thing. We have plenty of evidence to suggest standing toe to toe or at least up close with George is a very valid option. Boxing him negative is easier but Lyle got to him with a very basic skill set and hurt him bad enough to finish. Ali was right in front of him on the ropes catching his shots and hitting up with rear hands at will. The two guys he made his bones off for that wrecking ball rep were a very fragile come forward fighter and a just about shot Frazier who treated him with the same amount of respect as his last two sad defences coming in about 10lbs heavier? Someone who could see the windmills coming, box, last and hurt him like say Weaver, Louis or Witherspoon could've taken him out rather methodically I reckon. Note I'm not keen on Weaver just an archetype example.

 

So we can add the GOAT to that formula?

 

There are more than 70+ George Foreman fights. Ali was the only one who manage to stall by wrestling and he had to take an insane amount of punishment to the body while also having the benefit of loose ropes and muggy heat to drain Foreman. In addition to that, Ali did manage to block or roll with many of Foreman's power punches while mixing his wrestling with superb counters and flurries in between.

Show me a single instance of someone beating Foreman by stalling with wrestling the way Smith did.

 

No offense but you completely missed my point.

In more than 70+ professional bouts, nobody thought wrestling with Foreman was a smart idea or attempted it other than Ali, which had many unique circumstances I already covered.

And Lyle was a better fighter than Smith. It's a gross oversimplification to say Lyle nearly beat Foreman and Smith was similar therefore Smith could win. The only instance we have of Smith slugging it out with a big guy his own size was Ruddock and he got destroyed. He didn't exactly win with his clinching tactics against Tyson did he? Why do boxing forum posters use instances of a boxer losing to support their argument? It's Samuel Peter all over again.

 

I should also mention, Smith got stopped by Holmes, not the world's greatest puncher.

 

That was on a cut.

 

Smith was getting pounded anyway.

 

True i can't remember much about it really, only seen it once when I was going through Larry Holmes career set years ago. Just remember the ending and that was it, couldn't of been much of a fight, because don't remember anything about it that stood out.

 

Literally only Peralta went 10 rounds with first career Foreman. He had a 90% KO ratio and the vast majority of opponents didn't make it past the 3rd round. So clearly employing wrestling didn't give them any sort of edge. I have seen every available fight that has footage. Scott Ledoux tried that wrestling **** and Foreman took him up on the challenged and humbled him immediately.

This content is protected

I'm not blown away by Lyle either. I'm just saying he's more well rounded than Smith and those skills are what helped him against Foreman. Lyle has a good jab, is a better inside fighter, can throw a counter right hand over the opponents jab, can throw 4+ punch combinations. Smith was an incredibly simple and straightforward fighter even compared to Lyle which is saying something.

As I said in my first post Smith is outgunned against Foreman. Foreman can do everything he can and more. It's a pretty easy matchup to guess unless Smith lands the proverbial punchers chance or Foreman has constipation from too many burgers.

See above. The crucial difference is Lyle had more tools. Lyle was also a lot braver (dumber?) than every single Foreman opponent and was willing to go to war. Smith wasn't willing to open up against Tyson and got blasted out against Ruddock when he did open up against the only other big hitter his own size. Bruno was a miracle late round KO which is astronomically unlikely in this match up.

Also crucially, if you watch the Foreman vs Lyle match, it was the counter right hands over Foremans pawing jab that led to Lyle damaging Foreman enough to knock him down. Zaire Foreman would not be using a half assed boxer puncher stance using a pawing jab, unsure of himself, with Gil Clancy in his corner. He would be on a seek and destroy full of confidence. So if you insist on comparing Smith to Lyle you would have to show me footage of Smith countering a jab with right hands.

If he doesn't mind peeing blood from body shots he can go right ahead and clinch all night to stall. Smith didn't have a quarter of Ali's wrestling finesse or ability to roll with shots and he still took heavy damage to the body while tying Foreman up.

I get that, but other than catching a relatively inexperienced Bruno late, when did Smith dig deep to win a brutal war? All the Tyson fight proves is that Smith had the strength and clinching ability to survive at the elite level and that doesn't mean much because even if Foreman can't KO him he'll win an incredibly wide decision because Smith isn't firing back.

That's a bit different from bringing up Shavers knocking down an opponent and than losing because punching power is an x factor that could lead to Shavers winning at any point. Smith being able to clinch well probably won't lead to Smith winning unless he can drag Foreman into deep waters and that simply isn't happening for the reasons I've highlighted.

 

This is something I really don't get. Smith is very slow and very simple fighter. He didn't do anything exceptional. On top of that, his size advantage wouldn't be that much - likely less than an inch in height and around 10 lbs.

Smith is extremely overrated on this board. I don't really understand why, but maybe because of his nickname?

 

Excellent analyses GCC!

 

No, because of agendas. Smith fought in a later era compared to 70's Foreman and despite the overwhelming poll on Foremans favor, you still get people pretending this is an even matchup. Some people will consistently favor a fighter from a later era simply because they're from a later era.

A perfect example is White Bomber claiming Louis would have lost to Michael Bent to stick with his agenda since he thinks Morrison beats Louis, therefore anyone who beat Morrison would also beat Louis.

 

Bonecrusher was on a tier below Dokes, Thomas, Page, Tucker, Berbick...I dont even put him on the level of 1979 to 1984 Weaver. To me the Witherspoon ko was over a completely uninvolved, undertrained, uninspired fighter...as Tim himself explained. He was nowhere near even 1986 Holmes or Spinks, certainly not Tyson. To me he was the ultimate alphabet champ, a notch above Seldon, Briggs, Bruno (even that last name is contestable). He just wasn't good enough to beat prime (or even 1993) Foreman, Lyle...I think even peak Quarry might have taken him. He had a real good shot, but Holmes stopped him twice, he survived Tyson, Ruddock pulverised him, Marvis...WOW. He just wasn't a great fighter. Wilder actually had better basics (yeah. I know) and a far better punch. I'm not even sure I can rate his basic ability too much over Shavers. to be honest. No offense to fans, to me he was summarily unimpressive...though arguably not too much more than the first list of names I mentioned above.